Com. v. Upshaw, M. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • J-S11041-22
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    MARCUS UPSHAW                              :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 1198 WDA 2021
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 14, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0001280-2009
    BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.:                         FILED: JUNE 28, 2022
    Marcus Upshaw (“Upshaw”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing
    his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1
    We remand for the issuance of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) order in compliance with
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C).
    In 2011, after a jury convicted Upshaw of second-degree-murder and
    related offenses, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison
    without the possibility of parole, plus ten and one-half years in prison.
    Following a procedural history not herein relevant, this Court affirmed the
    judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Upshaw, 
    2014 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3289
    , 
    2014 WL 10965838
     (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished
    memorandum). In 2014, Upshaw filed a PCRA petition, his first. The PCRA
    ____________________________________________
    1   See 42 Pa.C.S.A.§§ 9541-9546.
    J-S11041-22
    court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed the dismissal.         See
    Commonwealth v. Upshaw, 
    170 A.3d 1249
     (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished
    memorandum).
    On May 10, 2021, Upshaw filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his
    second. The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and Upshaw
    filed a timely notice of appeal. On October 21, 2021, the PCRA court entered
    an order directing Upshaw to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors
    complained of on appeal within twenty-one days. Upshaw failed to comply
    with the order.    The PCRA court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion in which it
    concluded that, based on Upshaw’s failure to file a concise statement, his
    issues on appeal were waived for failure to comply with the Rule 1925(b)
    order.
    Pursuant to Rule 1925(b), “[i]f the judge entering the order giving rise
    to the notice of appeal . . . desires clarification of the errors complained of on
    appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record
    in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors
    complained of on appeal.” As with all orders, the clerk of courts must promptly
    serve each party with a copy of the Rule 1925(b) order. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
    114(B)(1).    Additionally, the clerk shall promptly note on the docket the
    following information: (1) the date of receipt in the clerk’s office of the court
    order; (2) the date appearing on the court order; and (3) the date of service
    of the court order. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2). Our Supreme Court has ruled
    -2-
    J-S11041-22
    that the clerk’s obligations under Rule 114 are mandatory and may not be
    modified by local rules. See Commonwealth v. Hess, 
    810 A.2d 1249
    , 1253
    (Pa. 2002) (holding that an untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement did not
    result in waiver where, inter alia, the trial court docket did not indicate the
    date and manner of service of the court’s Rule 1925(b) order in violation of
    Rule 114).
    Here, the docket does not reflect that the Rule 1925(b) order was served
    on Upshaw, who was proceeding pro se, at his prison address. Instead, the
    docket indicates that the Rule 1925(b) order was served on Upshaw’s prior
    counsel, who no longer represented him. As the clerk of courts failed to serve
    Upshaw with a copy of the Rule 1925(b) order and to note such service on the
    docket, we must remand for the issuance of a new Rule 1925(b) order in
    accordance with Rule 114(C).
    Upon remand, the PCRA court is directed to enter a new Rule 1925(b)
    order within thirty days of this judgment order. The clerk of courts shall serve
    Upshaw with a copy of the order at his prison address and note the date and
    manner of service on the docket in accordance with Rule 114(C). If Upshaw
    files a timely concise statement in accordance with the new Rule 1925(b)
    order, the PCRA court shall prepare and file a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing
    the errors raised in the concise statement.
    Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1198 WDA 2021

Judges: Sullivan, J.

Filed Date: 6/28/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/28/2022